Topic: M-1620 Pro vs Antelope Orion 32+ Gen 4 – Raw Specs vs Real-World

Hi!

I’m looking to expand my UFX III with additional line level converters via MADI. Two options currently on my radar are the Antelope Orion 32+ | Gen 4 and the RME M-1620 Pro. With the Antelope I get around double the amount of I/O.

On paper, the Orion seems to outperform the M-1620 Pro when it comes to raw conversion specs — dynamic range, THD+N, etc. Price-wise they’re in roughly the same ballpark. The RME of course has other features like AVB networking and the typical RME integration/stability, but from a purely analog I/O performance perspective, the Antelope numbers look better.

Right now, I only need 16 analog I/O, but I like the idea of being prepared for future expansion. That said, I want to understand if the technical spec sheet comparison is telling the whole story.

My question to you:
    •    Are the published Orion specs directly comparable to RME’s published specs, or are there differences in how they’re measured/stated?
    •    Is there any “hidden” technical reason why the M-1620 Pro might perform closer to (or even better than) the Orion in practice, despite what the spec sheets suggest?

I’d like to avoid subjective opinions and non-scientific listening impressions here — I’m really just after the technical reality behind the numbers.

Thanks!

2 (edited by ramses 2025-08-13 18:15:32)

Re: M-1620 Pro vs Antelope Orion 32+ Gen 4 – Raw Specs vs Real-World

Hi Stephan, I think it is impossible to translate technical specs into sound. IMHO many of today’s technical specs are inaudible anyway.

So, a few dB (or percent) more or less would not be the decisive argument for purchasing the hardware.

See the whole product. More important are the overall quality in terms of the hardware, PCB layout, documentation, support, and finally, long-term firmware support.

For such an advanced studio setup—the backbone of your studio—I would also see it as an advantage to buy from a single vendor.

I do not know what’s possible in your country. I would propose to talk to your dealer to see whether he can send you the two devices so that you can make the final purchase decision after testing them in your environment.

Sorry, I can’t tell you much about Antelope (besides what I’ve read about some of their other products).
But I hope that my pragmatism in this regard helps you make a good decision.

I have owned the M-1620 Pro D for a couple of months; it does its job very well. The display gives you an excellent overview of input and output levels, and you also get two headphone outputs on top. I bought this unit mainly to get analog inputs supporting a maximum input level up to +24 dBu and to have more spare ports (I used nearly all the analog ports of the UFX III).

My setup, in case you are interested, see here: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ent … ter-en-de/

BR Ramses - HDSPe MADI FX, M-1620 Pro D, 12Mic, UFX III, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, Nuendo 15, Win10 IoT Ent

Re: M-1620 Pro vs Antelope Orion 32+ Gen 4 – Raw Specs vs Real-World

If I look at the Antelope review on Amazon, then they had some critique points: regarding device setup, an online activation process which needs an usb connection and internet connection, then software add-ons where it looks as if you have to pay additionally for or and the software from handling perspective.

https://www.amazona.de/test-antelope-or … interface/

Ok .. it seems, that you can use the converter also as audio interface over USB or thunderbolt.
But well .. other things would be more important to me, if I have already an UFX III (like us two).

BR Ramses - HDSPe MADI FX, M-1620 Pro D, 12Mic, UFX III, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, Nuendo 15, Win10 IoT Ent

Re: M-1620 Pro vs Antelope Orion 32+ Gen 4 – Raw Specs vs Real-World

ramses wrote:

If I look at the Antelope review on Amazon, then they had some critique points: regarding device setup, an online activation process...

Yes, not gonna use it as an interface. I plan to set it up once and route analog I/O to MADI I/O, and use it as a converter. Have had so many issues with the Antelope software and drivers previously, so not gonna go down that route again smile

5 (edited by ramses 2025-08-13 20:44:52)

Re: M-1620 Pro vs Antelope Orion 32+ Gen 4 – Raw Specs vs Real-World

stephan_martin wrote:
ramses wrote:

If I look at the Antelope review on Amazon, then they had some critique points: regarding device setup, an online activation process...

Yes, not gonna use it as an interface. I plan to set it up once and route analog I/O to MADI I/O, and use it as a converter. Have had so many issues with the Antelope software and drivers previously, so not gonna go down that route again smile

Did you read the review regarding software part and activation of the unit?
Sounds that you have to activate the unit to make it run, possibly regardless how you use it (converter vs recording interface).

I translated the passage from the review for you:

"As is common nowadays, you need an Antelope Audio account to activate the device. However, this is only possible once a stable USB/Thunderbolt connection has been established, and after you have installed the Antelope Launcher (a sort of setup software) and the Antelope Unified Driver, rebooting the system several times. It was only after several reinstalls that this process worked somewhat reliably for me. The Antelope Launcher also provides a server that a) must be running, and b) to which the device must have an active connection.
- Antelope Orion32pus_sw_Software
- Antelope Orion32pus_sw_server
- Antelope Orion32pus_sw_Devices

Even once you have completed all that, you may still encounter confusing aspects, such as how driver revisions are displayed. According to the software, I should install version 4.5.0 (latest), even though—when connected to the server—version 4.6.0 was already running. I also had to first downgrade to server version 1.8.17 and then upgrade again to 1.8.18 before the server would start reliably.

In addition, there are various “bundle versions” that should also be up to date. In my case, the software and firmware version was 64.1.3 (current). To summarise, three active software engines are required for setup and operation:
- Software and firmware
- Manager server
- Antelope Unified Driver

The Control Panel is also launched via the Launcher software. This, too, is—let’s say—problematic. If you try to learn more by clicking “Info” in the menu and selecting Control Panel or Videos (in the “How to Use” section), you are shown four-year-old videos about other panels, or taken to Antelope Audio’s YouTube channel, which currently (as of 02/2025) does not contain a single video about the Orion 32+ Gen 4.

Closing the Control Panel via the menu or the window’s X button (on a Mac) results in the message “orion32_gen4 unexpectedly quit.” Furthermore, the Antelope display repeatedly went into screen-safe mode unprompted, even though I had set it to “Never” in the menu."


For me it sounds as if the unit even won't work if all the software and the manager server is not running.
Sorry, but this all is IMHO way to complicated and an online activation is for me a no-go.
Either this is a hardware device and works or not.

BR Ramses - HDSPe MADI FX, M-1620 Pro D, 12Mic, UFX III, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, Nuendo 15, Win10 IoT Ent

Re: M-1620 Pro vs Antelope Orion 32+ Gen 4 – Raw Specs vs Real-World

I'm confident that I will be able to setup the unit.
I'm more interested in the topic of performance of the AD- and DA-conversion

7 (edited by ramses 2025-08-14 10:22:11)

Re: M-1620 Pro vs Antelope Orion 32+ Gen 4 – Raw Specs vs Real-World

stephan_martin wrote:

I'm confident that I will be able to setup the unit.
I'm more interested in the topic of performance of the AD- and DA-conversion

Sure you will make it, but this is IMHO not the main point.

We all know that software-based licensing/activation processes can be a real pain.
I have this currently with my car; I want to book navigation services, but it took three days now to learn that it worked better via app.

My expectation—when buying a hardware device for recording—is that it just works, because it's hardware.
This alone would be a deal-breaker for me against Antelopes licensing / online activation of HW.

stephan_martin wrote:

I’d like to avoid subjective opinions and non-scientific listening impressions here —
I’m really just after the technical reality behind the numbers.

Well, as you might have read, RME has an excellent reputation with the current product line of converters, not only with the series of reference converters.

I assume it will be rather unlikely that somebody with recent Orion and RME converters has both units in use and compared them A/B.

Therefore, you might need to order the two devices yourself to perform blind tests. Do not forget: at exactly the same volume levels. Then you can hear the two products with your ears in your environment and compare what you like most (sound- and operation-wise).

BR Ramses - HDSPe MADI FX, M-1620 Pro D, 12Mic, UFX III, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, Nuendo 15, Win10 IoT Ent

Re: M-1620 Pro vs Antelope Orion 32+ Gen 4 – Raw Specs vs Real-World

stephan_martin wrote:

Hi!

I’m looking to expand my UFX III with additional line level converters via MADI. Two options currently on my radar are the Antelope Orion 32+ | Gen 4 and the RME M-1620 Pro. With the Antelope I get around double the amount of I/O.

On paper, the Orion seems to outperform the M-1620 Pro when it comes to raw conversion specs — dynamic range, THD+N, etc. Price-wise they’re in roughly the same ballpark. The RME of course has other features like AVB networking and the typical RME integration/stability, but from a purely analog I/O performance perspective, the Antelope numbers look better.

Right now, I only need 16 analog I/O, but I like the idea of being prepared for future expansion. That said, I want to understand if the technical spec sheet comparison is telling the whole story.

My question to you:
    •    Are the published Orion specs directly comparable to RME’s published specs, or are there differences in how they’re measured/stated?
    •    Is there any “hidden” technical reason why the M-1620 Pro might perform closer to (or even better than) the Orion in practice, despite what the spec sheets suggest?

I’d like to avoid subjective opinions and non-scientific listening impressions here — I’m really just after the technical reality behind the numbers.

Thanks!

Hi, did you end up buying one or the other? How has it been?